These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 7605189)

  • 21. The chi-square test of independence.
    McHugh ML
    Biochem Med (Zagreb); 2013; 23(2):143-9. PubMed ID: 23894860
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. [Clinical research XVII. χ(2) test, from the expected to the observed].
    Rivas-Ruiz R; Castelán-Martínez OD; Pérez M; Talavera JO
    Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc; 2013; 51(5):552-7. PubMed ID: 24144149
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Pearson's chi-square test and rank correlation inferences for clustered data.
    Shih JH; Fay MP
    Biometrics; 2017 Sep; 73(3):822-834. PubMed ID: 28182832
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Assessing screening tests: extensions of McNemar's test.
    Lachenbruch PA; Lynch CJ
    Stat Med; 1998 Oct; 17(19):2207-17. PubMed ID: 9802179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Reading research critically: results using correlation coefficients.
    Giuffre M
    J Post Anesth Nurs; 1995 Aug; 10(4):220-4. PubMed ID: 7650626
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. A discussion on significance indices for contingency tables under small sample sizes.
    Oliveira NL; Pereira CAB; Diniz MA; Polpo A
    PLoS One; 2018; 13(8):e0199102. PubMed ID: 30071022
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Unadjusted Bivariate Two-Group Comparisons: When Simpler is Better.
    Vetter TR; Mascha EJ
    Anesth Analg; 2018 Jan; 126(1):338-342. PubMed ID: 29189214
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Analysing 2 × 2 contingency tables: which test is best?
    Ludbrook J
    Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol; 2013 Mar; 40(3):177-80. PubMed ID: 23294254
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Testing for independence in J×K contingency tables with complex sample survey data.
    Lipsitz SR; Fitzmaurice GM; Sinha D; Hevelone N; Giovannucci E; Hu JC
    Biometrics; 2015 Sep; 71(3):832-40. PubMed ID: 25762089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. The score test for independence in R x C contingency tables with missing data.
    Lipsitz SR; Fitzmaurice GM
    Biometrics; 1996 Jun; 52(2):751-62. PubMed ID: 8672711
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Testing differences in proportions.
    Fisher MJ; Marshall AP; Mitchell M
    Aust Crit Care; 2011 May; 24(2):133-8. PubMed ID: 21536451
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Understanding tests of the association of categorical variables: the Pearson chi-square test and Fisher's exact test.
    Hess AS; Hess JR
    Transfusion; 2017 Apr; 57(4):877-879. PubMed ID: 28295394
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Combined quality improvement ratio: a method for a more robust evaluation of changes in screening rates.
    Chambers RB; Krousel-Wood MA; Re R
    Jt Comm J Qual Improv; 2001 Feb; 27(2):101-6. PubMed ID: 11221010
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Statistical methods in epidemiology. VII. An overview of the chi2 test for 2 x 2 contingency table analysis.
    Rigby AS
    Disabil Rehabil; 2001 Nov; 23(16):693-7. PubMed ID: 11732558
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Selecting a contingency table in a population-based association study: allele frequency or positivity?
    Ohashi J; Tokunaga K
    J Hum Genet; 1999; 44(4):246-8. PubMed ID: 10429364
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares.
    Li CH
    Behav Res Methods; 2016 Sep; 48(3):936-49. PubMed ID: 26174714
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Statistical conclusion validity and type IV errors in rehabilitation research.
    Ottenbacher KJ
    Arch Phys Med Rehabil; 1992 Feb; 73(2):121-5. PubMed ID: 1543405
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Assessment on homogeneity tests for kappa statistics under equal prevalence across studies in reliability.
    Nam JM
    Stat Med; 2006 May; 25(9):1521-31. PubMed ID: 16220477
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Expected versus observed information in SEM with incomplete normal and nonnormal data.
    Savalei V
    Psychol Methods; 2010 Dec; 15(4):352-67. PubMed ID: 20853954
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Evaluation of an adjusted chi-square statistic as applied to observational studies involving clustered binary data.
    Jung SH; Ahn C; Donner A
    Stat Med; 2001 Jul; 20(14):2149-61. PubMed ID: 11439427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.